Help Please

[+velofit]

I am wondering if anyone here would be interested in meeting up with me to show me the proper way to take a reading when hiding a Geocache. I use a Garmin 60CSX. It has the ability to average, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. I live in Perkasie, Pennsylvania (N 40 22.555 W 75 15.390). I am leaving for Florida on Friday the 2nd and will be back on the 17th. I plan to do alot of Caching down there. I am available tommorow morning till 2pm the 1st of May. Please let me know if you can help out a newbie. Thank-You.

 

Happy Caching!

 

Jeff

 

velofit75@gmail.com

Edited April 30, 2008 by velofit

[gratefulHIKE]

the best thing to do when placing a cache is to make sure the GPS is properly calibrated before attempting to voyage into the woods......once confirmed then you simply allow the signals to settle once you get to an area you wish to place the cache

 

you really cant do much better than that due to the different ways each GPS interprets the signal......when uploading the cache to a website or telling others where it is located use hints.....that is all you can do really

[+velofit]

the best thing to do when placing a cache is to make sure the GPS is properly calibrated before attempting to voyage into the woods......once confirmed then you simply allow the signals to settle once you get to an area you wish to place the cache

 

you really cant do much better than that due to the different ways each GPS interprets the signal......when uploading the cache to a website or telling others where it is located use hints.....that is all you can do really

 

Thank-You.

[jmundinger]

My approach is similar to that described by gratefulHIKE. I wait a moment or two to allow the unit to settle and then lay it as level as possible, as close as possible to the hide and turn on the "average" feature. I leave the unit for awhile - typically while I'm doing other things to hide the cache - and then save the waypoint (the count on the average page usually exceeds 100). Typically, I will then walk away a short distance and do a find on that waypoint. Then, I might take second averaged waypoint. If I have saved more than one waypoint, I will compare the two on a map/air photo/googleearth and pick the one that looks better (or take a point that is somewhere between them).

[+velofit]

My approach is similar to that described by gratefulHIKE. I wait a moment or two to allow the unit to settle and then lay it as level as possible, as close as possible to the hide and turn on the "average" feature. I leave the unit for awhile - typically while I'm doing other things to hide the cache - and then save the waypoint (the count on the average page usually exceeds 100). Typically, I will then walk away a short distance and do a find on that waypoint. Then, I might take second averaged waypoint. If I have saved more than one waypoint, I will compare the two on a map/air photo/googleearth and pick the one that looks better (or take a point that is somewhere between them).

 

Thank-You

[+Klatch]

My approach is similar to that described by gratefulHIKE. I wait a moment or two to allow the unit to settle and then lay it as level as possible, as close as possible to the hide and turn on the "average" feature. I leave the unit for awhile - typically while I'm doing other things to hide the cache - and then save the waypoint (the count on the average page usually exceeds 100). Typically, I will then walk away a short distance and do a find on that waypoint. Then, I might take second averaged waypoint. If I have saved more than one waypoint, I will compare the two on a map/air photo/googleearth and pick the one that looks better (or take a point that is somewhere between them).

The 60csx should be held vertically for best signal reception as opposed to the eTrex series which should be held horizontally. Different antenna types (quad helix versus patch). Calibrating the compass is important when seeking a waypoint such as a geocache, but will not improve the accuracy when obtaining a waypoint when placing a cache.

[yogazoo]

Unless you use the "mother of all geocaching units", a Colorado. Then you don't average your waypoint and take the chance of a crappy snapshot. You see the Colorado doesn't have averaging. Garmin stripped the Colorado of the waypoint averaging feature.

[+LifeOnEdge!]

Unless you use the "mother of all geocaching units", a Colorado. Then you don't average your waypoint and take the chance of a crappy snapshot. You see the Colorado doesn't have averaging. Garmin stripped the Colorado of the waypoint averaging feature.

 

Fortunately, the Colorado units don't need the averaging feature. I allow my unit to settle in an area for several minutes. I verify that the esimated accuracy is minimized. Then I take a couple waypoints. You'll notice that the waypoints normally vary only in the last digit and by only +/- .001'.

 

As far as the comment about looking on Google Earth to verify if the waypoint is good: That's a very crude approach. If your waypoint is off enough to see the variation in Google Earth, you have a very bad reading and possibly a problem with your GPS unit.

[jmundinger]

As far as the comment about looking on Google Earth to verify if the waypoint is good: That's a very crude approach. If your waypoint is off enough to see the variation in Google Earth, you have a very bad reading and possibly a problem with your GPS unit.

 

Actually, I should have been a little more complete with that description. I get to GoogleEarth by first viewing the data in MapSource. Sometimes I will also look at the data in EasyGPS. Both MapSource and EasyGPS give you the capability to measure the distance between the waypoints and to also look at possible interpolations between the data points. I also might look at those points in USAPhotoMaps - both the 1/24 quad and the Imagery. I am only able to get the older black&white for my area. But, even with that, I am able to evaluate two points that measure about 10ft. apart in MapSource or EasyGPS. And, looking at the points in GoogleEarth will show what the waypoint looks like on the map, once the cache is published and, for the caches that I have hidden, that the coordinates are not going to direct people to a spot that is 30 or 40 feet off.

[yogazoo]

 

Fortunately, the Colorado units don't need the averaging feature. I allow my unit to settle in an area for several minutes. I verify that the esimated accuracy is minimized. Then I take a couple waypoints. You'll notice that the waypoints normally vary only in the last digit and by only +/- .001'.

 

 

Your sadly very wrong about not needing the averaging feature on the Colorado. I have had two instances this year already where the waypoints that field techs have marked were, what appeared to be, abberrant points caused by an abberrant reading at the time of the "snapshot". Granted, this is out of about a hundred or so points but the fact remains, averaging WOULD HAVE smoothed out these abberrant readings. Its good that we caught them, but it sucks that we now have to double check each point in ArcView.

 

When Garmin finally gets their act together with the Colorado's I have no doubt that the averaging feature will be included. I just wish that everyone who feels its not needed would stop making excuses for Garmin's oversight. It is needed. I have experienced first hand that it IS needed. And I'm telling you that it was not a concious descision made by garmin not to include it rather a simple oversight.

 

LifeOnEdge, you said that the number only typically varies by .001'.Well if your in DD.DDDD lat/long thats about 50 feet. Rather crapy readings if you ask me.

Edited May 1, 2008 by yogazoo

[+LifeOnEdge!]

 

Fortunately, the Colorado units don't need the averaging feature. I allow my unit to settle in an area for several minutes. I verify that the esimated accuracy is minimized. Then I take a couple waypoints. You'll notice that the waypoints normally vary only in the last digit and by only +/- .001'.

 

 

You're (edited for spelling error) sadly very wrong about not needing the averaging feature on the Colorado. I have had two instances this year already where the waypoints that field techs have marked were, what appeared to be, abberrant points caused by an abberrant reading at the time of the "snapshot". Granted, this is out of about a hundred or so points but the fact remains, averaging WOULD HAVE smoothed out these abberrant readings. Its good that we caught them, but it sucks that we now have to double check each point in ArcView.

 

When Garmin finally gets their act together with the Colorado's I have no doubt that the averaging feature will be included. I just wish that everyone who feels its not needed would stop making excuses for Garmin's oversight. It is needed. I have experienced first hand that it IS needed. And I'm telling you that it was not a concious descision made by garmin not to include it rather a simple oversight.

 

LifeOnEdge, you said that the number only typically varies by .001'.Well if your in DD.DDDD lat/long thats about 50 feet. Rather crapy readings if you ask me.

 

- First of all, I'm a scientist. I know how to take good measurements, and yes, checking to see if the data makes sense is a part of that activity, GPSmap 60CSx or Colorado400t equally.

 

- Secondly, I said what I meant and meant what I said. +/- .001' That is 1 1000th of a minute, NOT 1 1000th of a Degree as you stated. Sadly, most don't even know the difference. This is why I INSIST that units be used 100% of the time. Use the units and LEARN the units and you won't be making silly mistakes like this.

 

- It sounds to me that you really need to sell your Colorado and buy a brand new GPSmap 60CSx and be happy with that.

 

I for one am tired of all the bellyaching and whining I'm hearing on here. If you don't like the unit, RETURN IT!!!

Edited May 2, 2008 by LifeOnEdge!

[+LifeOnEdge!]

 

Fortunately, the Colorado units don't need the averaging feature. I allow my unit to settle in an area for several minutes. I verify that the esimated accuracy is minimized. Then I take a couple waypoints. You'll notice that the waypoints normally vary only in the last digit and by only +/- .001'.

 

 

Your (I think you mean "you're" here) sadly very wrong about not needing the averaging feature on the Colorado. I have had two instances this year already where the waypoints that field techs have marked were, what appeared to be, abberrant points caused by an abberrant reading at the time of the "snapshot". Granted, this is out of about a hundred or so points but the fact remains, averaging WOULD HAVE smoothed out these abberrant readings. Its good that we caught them, but it sucks that we now have to double check each point in ArcView.

 

When Garmin finally gets their act together with the Colorado's I have no doubt that the averaging feature will be included. I just wish that everyone who feels its not needed would stop making excuses for Garmin's oversight. It is needed. I have experienced first hand that it IS needed. And I'm telling you that it was not a concious descision made by garmin not to include it rather a simple oversight.

 

LifeOnEdge, you said that the number only typically varies by .001'.Well if your in DD.DDDD lat/long thats about 50 feet. Rather crapy readings if you ask me.

 

I want to follow up on this topic with some facts. I won't make any claims (since the one I already made is valid and stands on firm ground.) I will just share the information on todays measurements and data. I will summarize the data points that I took since if I gave you the raw data, you'd surely think I was fabricating this:

 

This afternoon in (we'll call it) Dallas was beautiful. The sky was clear. Temperatures were in the mid 70's.

 

I took my Garmin GPSmap 60CSX (one of the very first units delivered) and my Garmin Colorado 400t out in my backyard, installed fresh batteries, turned both units on, and hung them both from a banner/flag pole that hand horizontally from trellis that covers by patio. I allowed both units to bake with a clear view of the sky for 75 (or so) minutes. Both units were back-to-back with a similar view of the sky. Both units had WAAS enabled and had a differential lock with estimated accuracy of 9 feet. I separated the units and initiated an averaged waypoint measurement on the 60CSx. I allowed this unit to take an averaged reading for 12 minutes (720 data points.) While the 60CSx was taking readings, I manually marked 108 waypoints with the 400t.

 

This is the tabulated data for both units:

 

GARMIN GPSmap 60CSx:

 

N 32° 4x.x45' W 096° 3x.x71' estimated accuracy 5.1 feet

 

GARMIN Colorado 400t:

 

Number of waypoints ... Coordinates

 

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x43' W 096° 3x.x70'

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x43' W 096° 3x.x71'

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x43' W 096° 3x.x72'

 

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x44' W 096° 3x.x70'

........ 108 ........ N 32° 4x.x44' W 096° 3x.x71'

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x44' W 096° 3x.x72'

 

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x45' W 096° 3x.x70'

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x45' W 096° 3x.x71'

.......... 0 .......... N 32° 4x.x45' W 096° 3x.x72'

 

There is obviously variability, as you would expect, but the data points are very tight. From the 108 waypoints, viewing them on the map zoomed down to 20 feet, show what appears to be 4 waypoints overlapping each by one pixel like 4 slices of turkey sitting in a vacuum pack.

 

As most of you know, .001' in the north coordinate relates to approximately 6 feet.

 

As I indicated before, if you have a good unit, fresh batteries, a reasonably clear view of the sky, you're going to get a good reading from your Colorado GPS unit. If you don't, there's something wrong that can be addressed.

 

Is there a need for waypoint averaging? I think that there's a need to own a good GPS. I think there's a need to let your GPS unit bake sometime before you plan on taking coordinates for publication. I think there's a need to let your GPS unit settle on site regardless of whether you are seeking a cache or planting a cache. I feel there's a need to monitor your estimated GPS accuracy and make a decision about how to determine the proper way to measure the coordinates.

 

If we're going to start insisting that we get accuracy to .0001' of arc or less, YES, I think your GPS unit needs an averaging feature, especially if you're going to indicate your coordinates to this degree of accuracy. Until then, the time you spend "averaging" your waypoint coordinates could just as well be spent allowing your unit to settle into its surrounding.

 

As far as Garmin finally getting "their act together," I think they do a great job. I know some of these people. They're not your average business people sitting behind a desk wishing they were on the other side of the window.

 

yogazoo YOUR turn to take your GPS units out and take readings! Oh wait. You sold YOUR 60CSx. Oops!

Edited May 2, 2008 by LifeOnEdge!

[+Red90]

The waypoint averaging is helpful is poor reception areas. In those areas you will get large drift. This can be seen by looking at the tracklog. Averaging is a simple way to get the center of the drift. In a good reception area it does not matter.....

[yogazoo]

LifeOnEdge,

 

Red90 hit the nail on the head. You're in Dallas which, compared to Montana, is as flat as a pancake. You may always get great reception. Good for you. I'm happy for you. Montanan's and others in the Rockies often find ourselves in deep canyons, valleys, heavy tree canopy, etc. For us, waypoint averaging is absolutely 100% needed.

 

You could probably even take a regular old legend or vista (non-cx) and get the same accuracy readings you found with the 60CX and CO whereas we wouldn't even get a decent lock. In a flat environment, good view of the sky, decent constellation, of course your readings are going to be stable. No kidding. Tell me something I don't know. Put those same GPS's in a valley in Glacier National Park and you'll see quite different outcomes. In Montana, our signals are not ideal and we receive alot of bounced and weak signals which can cause abberrant snapshots. Averaging smooths those out. But you know this, you're just being difficult.

 

Yeah, Oops, I sold my 60CSX. My fault, I should have known that Garmin would leave out a bunch of features that are important to non-geocachers. I think the picture of HIKERS on the Garmin Colorado page should have been a dead giveaway that this unit would be geared toward geocachers instead of hardcore outdoor use. Yep, entirely my bad!

 

There is a need for waypoint averaging (Period)

 

And just for clarification LifeOnEdge. YOU didn't specify what units you were refering to in your first post. I know what the difference is and people on this forum are not as dumb as you think. When you post a figure such as .001 you may, in the future, want to mention what units you're using.

 

SECONDLY. You claim to be a "scientist", but I seriously doubt that claim. No scientist I know is as combative, condescending, and as just plain sophmorically wrong as you are on a consistent basis. As a scientist you would have been able to see the obvious potential for variables in the data recieved by two units, one in Dallas, one in Montana. Your no scientist dude so please quit proclaiming to be in your arguments. Its arrogant, annoying, and gives real scentists a bad name.

Edited May 5, 2008 by yogazoo

[+themeecer]

Good gracious ... I am almost speechless .. almost. I run a kung fu school and have frequented martial arts forums at times. I've seen individuals itching for a verbal fight over the silliest things, for example .. there was a thread over 500 pages long complaining that the pajamas I wear when I throw punches and kicks aren't the same pajamas other users wear. Here I am on a forum dedicated to helping people use billion dollar satellites to find tupperware in the woods and there is still bickering. Give it a rest. Does it really matter? 30 years from now are you really going to care that some people prefer a different GPSr than you?

 

(From a new Garmin Colorado owner)

[yogazoo]

In Response to themeecer,

 

You're absolutly right about what you said. I may be guilty of feeding into it, but LifeOnEdge frequently annoys people on these forums, is tactless, arrogent, often disrespectful, and frequently wrong. Sorry if I offended you. Next time I'll take the high road and simply ignore him.

Edited May 5, 2008 by yogazoo